See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317073446

New One-Dimensional Sediment Features in HEC-RAS 5.0 and 5.1

Conference Paper · May 2017

DOI: 10.1061/9780784480625.018

CITATIONS READS
16 6,258

4 authors, including:

Stanford Gibson Alejandro Sánchez

Hydrologic Engineering Center Engineer Research and Development Center - U.S. Army
57 PUBLICATIONS   494 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   290 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flood Risk management Research Consortium View project

Mississippi River Geomorphology & Potamology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stanford Gibson on 15 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 New One-Dimensional Sediment Features in HEC-RAS 5.0 and 5.1
Gibson, S. Ph.D1, Sánchez, A. Ph.D.1, Piper, S.2, Brunner, G. P.E., D.WRE.1
1
Hydrologic Engineering Center, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 609 2nd
St., Davis, CA 95616; email: stanford.gibson@usace.army.mil
2
Resource Management Associates (RMA), 4171 Suisun Valley Rd., Suite J, Fairfield CA 94534.

ABSTRACT

The current version (5.0) of the Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-
RAS) and the imminent version (5.1) include an array of new sediment transport capabilities.
Previous HEC-RAS versions were limited to quasi-unsteady flow and vertical bed change.
HEC-RAS 5.0 and later versions eliminate each of these limitations, including unsteady flow
capabilities, lateral cross section change with the USDA-ARS Bank Stability and Toe Erosion
Model (BSTEM), and several other features that expand the model’s applicability. Coupling
sediment transport with the HEC-RAS unsteady flow capabilities also leverages unsteady
capabilities for sediment analysis, including mixed flow regimes, lateral and inline structures,
and operational rules. Additionally, recent versions of HEC-RAS include new bed change
algorithms, cohesive transport approaches, armoring methods, and an array of new output
options. This paper will highlight the new one-dimensional (1D) sediment capabilities in recent
versions of HEC-RAS.

INTRODUCTION

The US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)

recently released version 5.0 of their River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) in 2016 (USACE,
2016). HEC-RAS 5.0 included a variety of hydraulic and water quality advances over previous
versions, most notably a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model (Brunner et al., 2015). HEC-
RAS version 5.0 also included several important sediment transport developments.
HEC-RAS first included 1D sediment transport computations in version 4.0 (Brunner and
Gibson, 2006, Gibson et al., 2006). The original capabilities computed sediment continuity over
cross-section-centered control volumes with the Exner equation. Versions 4.0 and 4.1 used a
quasi-unsteady hydrodynamic model and computed the cross-sectional bed change using the
“veneer method.” The veneer method applies erosion and deposition evenly over all wet cross
section nodes between user-specified movable bed limits. These earlier versions also included
bed mixing algorithms and other physical and empirical limiters to constrain the theoretical
continuity equation with practical, morphological, limitations. These features (in version 4.0 and
4.1) followed the capability of the USACES’ legacy sediment transport model, HEC 6, very
closely.
HEC-RAS 5.0 expanded capabilities beyond HEC 6. The two most important developments
included coupling the sediment transport engine with the unsteady flow model and adding lateral
bank failure and toe scour capabilities by coupling the vertical bed change model with the
USDA-ARS Bank Scour and Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM). Version 5.0 also includes several
features that were not available in HEC 6 but were available in its commercial successor HEC 6T
(Thomas, 2002), including the Copeland (1992) bed mixing and armoring algorithm, bed
roughness predictors, and Specific Gage Analysis capabilities. Finally, HEC added several other
new algorithms and features to simulate processes earlier models could not. This paper
highlights these new features. More detailed information on the algorithms behind these features
and how to use them are in the sediment chapters of the HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference and
User Manual (HEC, 2016), which were largely re-written for the 5.0 release. In the months
following the 5.0 release, HEC released several bug fix versions (i.e. 5.0.1, 5.0.2, and 5.0.3).
These released did not include any substantial new features and this paper will refer to the entire
5.0.x series as 5.0.

UNSTEADY TRANSPORT

Previous versions of HEC-RAS simulated sediment transport with a quasi-unsteady

hydrodynamic model, computing transport based on a series of time-stamped, steady-flow, back-
water calculations. Quasi-unsteady flow is often an acceptable sediment transport simplification.
However, the quasi-unsteady approach does not conserve flow, which can distort results in
systems with substantial storage. By computing independent backwater profiles for each time
step, the quasi-unsteady model does not retain any hydrologic “memory” of previous time steps.
The water volume computed in the model is not contingent on the volume from previous times
step. Therefore, water can move in and out of storage without physical constraints. Small time
steps can mitigate this simplification in some cases. However, the quasi-unsteady simplification
can compute egregious water surface changes in n systems with significant storage, particularly
reservoirs. Steady flow computes the reservoir stage based on the equilibrium flow through the
gates, which can lead to erratic, unrealistic stage fluctuations in a mid-model reservoir in quasi-
unsteady flow (Figure 1). The quasi-unsteady model can also distort hydraulics in large river
models - which are common 1D applications – immediately enforcing the upstream flow
throughout the reach, instead of routing it.
Due to the limitations of simulating sediment transport with the quasi-unsteady
hydrodynamics, HEC-RAS 5.0 coupled sediment transport to the unsteady flow hydrodynamic
engine. Computing sediment transport with unsteady hydrodynamics has two main advantages.
First, the unsteady flow approach conserves water volume, making reservoir models much more
viable, especially mid-model reservoirs and even reservoir cascades. Second, connecting
sediment transport to the unsteady flow model leverages a suite of tools native to the HEC-RAS
unsteady modeling environment for sediment transport studies, including mixed flow, lateral
structures, and operational rules (Gibson and Boyd, 2014, 2016a). In fact, HEC-RAS 5.0
includes sediment specific features parameters to the operational rules, allowing users to operate
structures based on concentration or bed change. For example, Gibson and Boyd (2016b) used
these features to design reservoir flushing operations constrained by a downstream Total
Maximum daily Load (TMDL) requirements.
Unsteady sediment transport does not render the quasi-unsteady capabilities obsolete.
The quasi-unsteady model is more stable. Additionally, unsteady flow modeling usually requires
specialized expertise. Unsteady models can be unstable, and often require skillful trouble
shooting by an experienced practitioner. Movable cross-sections add an additional degree of
freedom, which can exacerbate stability issues. Therefore, in most cases, the quasi-unsteady
assumption is easier to use.
Figure 1: Unsteady flow conserves water volume and computes storage effects directly (left)
while quasi-unsteady (right) computes a steady state profile each time step and can alter
the reach volume artificially. These volume errors can be particularly problematic for
reservoirs and rivers with significant flood plain storage.

Additionally, quasi-unsteady runs can be faster under certain conditions. The unsteady flow
analysis solves each time step significantly faster. However, the variable time step available in
quasi-unsteady flow, which focuses computational time on periods of maximum bed change, can
make quasi-unsteady simulations more efficient for long term runs. Therefore, in some systems,
with minor storage, errors introduced by the quasi-unsteady simplification may be acceptable,
justifying the simpler, faster solution.

USDA-ARS BANK STABILITY AND TOE EROSION MODEL (BSTEM)

The HEC-RAS/BSTEM features have been well documented (Gibson et al., 2014).
These features even have their own HEC User Manual (HEC, 2015). However, these lateral bed
change capabilities are one of the most important new features in HEC-RAS 5.0 and deserve
mention in a new feature overview.
Most 1D sediment transport models adjust cross sectional nodes vertically to reflect bed
change. This assumption limits the morphological response to incision and deposition.
However, rivers can often adjust laterally, scouring banks and even inducing geotechnical failure
and mass wasting events.
HEC incorporated the USDA-ARS Bank Stability and Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM) into the
HEC-RAS sediment module. BSTEM computes toe scour and geotechnical bank stability, and
can update HEC-RAS cross sections laterally based on these processes. HEC-RAS also adds
sediment from lateral processes, including mass wasting, into the sediment transport routines,
routing this material downstream. Integrating BSTEM into the HEC-RAS sediment model
allows the coupled modeling, simulating feedbacks between incision, toe scour, bank failure, and
longitudinal transport.

FEATURES FROM OR INSPIRED BY HEC 6T

Many of the new features in HEC-RAS 5.0 reflect features in HEC 6T. Thomas (2002)
developed a parallel, commercial version of HEC 6, called HEC 6T. HEC 6T included many
popular features that were not available in HEC 6 or earlier versions of HEC-RAS. HEC-RAS
5.0 includes several of these features directly or features inspired by popular HEC 6T
capabilities. These features are listed and described in Table 1 and documented in detail in the
HEC-RAS User and Hydraulic Reference Manuals.

Table 1: HEC 6T features either included in HEC-RAS 5.0 or that inspired similar sediment
features in the latest version of HEC-RAS.
New HEC-RAS 5.0 Sediment Features
From or Inspired By HEC 6T
Copleand (1992) Sorting and Armoring
Method (aka Exner 7)
MPM-Toffaleti Transport Function
Reservoir Deposition Method –
(Bed Change Method 2 in HEC 6T)
HEC 6T Cohesive Deposition Method
Flow Weighted Sediment Splits
Brownlie (1983) and Limerinos (1970) bed Compute channel n-value dynamically, each
roughness predictors
(Van Rijn (1984) also included in HEC-
RAS)
Function
The Copeland function tends to allow more
scour than the default Thomas (Exner 5)
method and often works better on sand bed
rivers.
A blended transport function that replaces the
bed transport component of Toffaleti with the
Meyer-Peter-Muller equation for conditions
where Toffaleti tends to perform poorly (e.g.
transporting coarse particles).
Deposits more sediment in the deeper parts of
the cross section
The HEC-RAS cohesive method (the only
method in earlier versions) partitions cohesive
transport capacity based on bed fraction. The
HEC 6T method applies the total capacity to
each grain class. The two approaches reflect
different wash load assumptions and both are
included. The HEC 6T method tends to scour
more.
If flow splits into multiple downstream
reaches or distributaries, this feature splits
sediment between the reaches at the same
proportion as the flow split.
time step, as a function of hydrodynamic and
bed properties.
 Specific Gage Analysis
Sediment Diversion by Grain Class
Plots water surface elevation at specified
cross sections for specified flows over the
simulation period.
Diverts sediment from the model with a rating
curve that not only relates the mass of
diverted sediment to flow, but also the
gradational composition of the diverted
sediment.

Copeland Mixing Method. The Copeland (Exner 7) bed mixing method is based on Copeland’s
(1992) assertion that the default method in HEC 6 and HEC-RAS (Exner 5, renamed the
“Thomas” method in HEC-RAS) under-predicts deposition in sand bed conditions. The Thomas
method (Exner 5) was developed for the Snake River study, where it performed well, computing
the stable, cobble and gravel armor layer required to simulate bed change in those highly
stratified systems. However, while Copeland (1992) asserts that the “armor layer” concept that
both these mixing algorithms are built on is applicable to sand-bed rivers, he argues that the
default method tends to form armor layers too quickly and those armor layers tend to be too
restrictive, artificially limiting erosion.
The Copeland (Exner 7) method uses a non-linear curve to regulate subsurface
availability. The armoring algorithms from Thomas (Exner 5) and Copeland (Exner 7) are
included in Figure 2. The “Armoring Capacity Reduction” factor reduces the availability of a
subsurface grain class based on the cumulative thickness of larger particles in the cover layer.
For example, if the cover layer in a two grain class mixture (e.g. Fine Gravel-FG and Coarse
Sand-CS) includes enough FG mass that - if spread out - it would form a layer exactly one
particle diameter thick, the Thomas method would reduce CS transport by 17% while Copeland
would reduce it by 42%. However, if the cover layer contained enough FG to form a cover layer
2 particle diameters thick, the Thomas method would prevent any CS scour from the sub-surface
layer, while the Copeland method would still allow the model to remove 19% of the CS capacity
(81% reduction). HEC-RAS 5.0 also renames these algorithms, trading their HEC 6T Fortran
routine names (Exner 5 and 7) for the scientists responsible for them (Thomas and Copeland)
bringing the mixing function nomenclature into line with that used for transport function.
Figure 2: Difference between the capacity reduction curves that determining armor efficiency in
the default (Thomas-Exner 5) and new (Copeland-Exner 7) mixing algorithm.

Bed Roughness Predictors. Sediment transport is very sensitive to hydraulic roughness. But
hydraulic roughness is dynamic, responding to hydraulic conditions and, often, to sediment
transport. Bed roughness can evolve based on changing bed composition or bed form regimes.
Most 1D sediment models require flow-dependent roughness values to calibrate hydraulic and
sediment results. Bed roughness predictors take this linkage one step further. They compute
feedback between the hydraulic and sediment parameters and the bed roughness, computing a
new Manning’s roughness coefficient each time step in response to sediment properties.
HEC-RAS included the Limerinos (1970) and Brownlie (1983) bed roughness predictors, as well
as Van Rijn (1984). The Limerinos equation is based on the hydraulic radius and the d84 of the
bed. Therefore, it focuses on grain roughness, and is most appropriate for gravel and cobble
systems where grain friction dominates. Brownlie, on the other hand, developed his function for
rivers dominated by form drag, where bed forms dominate bed roughness. The Brownlie
equation can switch between two regimes.
For example, Figure 3 plots the n-value HEC-RAS computed at a mid-model cross
section with the Brownlie equation, during a transition from gravel to sand. The model
simulated an idealized sediment pulse, releasing sand into a gravel channel. Figure 3 plots the n
values HEC-RAS computed with the Brownlie equation as the cross section transitions from
gravel to sand. The analytical solutions to the upper and lower regime Brownlie equations are
also plotted for this time series. Around 23 hours into the simulation, the sand pulse reaches the
cross section and the Manning’s n-value drops.

Figure 3: Computed n-value - computed by the Brownlie bed roughness predictor - as a fine
sediment wave passes through a gravel cross section.

While tight feedback between morphology and roughness makes sense in principle, these
equations are not widely applied. The n-value lumps all explicit and unknown hydraulic energy
losses into a single parameter, confounding grain roughness and form roughness with energy
losses due to vegetation, sinuosity, the built environment, flow separation, water viscosity, and a
range of other factors excluded from these equations. They do not always reflect the n-values
computed in the fixed bed calibration phase. Selecting a bed roughness predictor often involves
a trade-off between precise empirical water surface calibrations and modeling dynamic, river
process, feedback. Calibrated n-values (particularly flow-dependent calibrations) are usually
more precise, but the flow-roughness factor allows modelers to simulate n-value evolution. In
order to smooth the noise associated with these functions, HEC-RAS allows users to average the
computed n-value over specified reaches.

Reservoir Deposition Method. HEC-RAS, like most 1D models, translates sediment continuity
deficit or surplus into bed change with the veneer method, adjusting all wet nodes within
movable bed limits an equal amount. Like other models, HEC-RAS includes variations of the
veneer method (e.g. scour only within the movable bed limits but deposit across all wet nodes).
Gibson and Nelson (2016) demonstrated that veneer based 1D models produce surprising robust
lateral bed change patterns (e.g. channel scour and overbank deposition), reproducing these
patters from diverse prototypes, under certain load conditions. However, the veneer method can
also generate spurious bed change patterns.
In general, numerical artifacts from the veneer method is a cost of the 1D simplifications.
While HEC is implementing some ad hoc improvements, there is no compelling unified theory
of channel change that can guide cross section updates. In most cases, some version of the
veneer method is the best 1D assumption. Reservoirs, again, are an exception to this
generalization.
Reservoir pools tend deposit based on veneer principles. Laterally mixed, suspended
sediment settles in the lacustrine reservoir environment, depositing in a laterally consistent
veneer. However, upstream, in the region of the delta, the river has enough energy to focus bed
load into the historic channel, but not enough to transport it all out. Therefore, the channel fills
first. In these environments, the deepest part of the cross section deposits more.
HEC 6 and 6T included a deposition option that deposits more sediment in the deeper parts of
the cross sections. This method applies bed change in proportion to water depth (Figure 4). This
feature was included in HEC-RAS as the “Reservoir Bed Change Method.”

40
Initial Bed
35
Final Bed ‐ Veneer Method
30
Final Bed ‐ Reservoir Method
Elevation (ft)

25 (depth dependent depositon)
20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Figure 4: Bed Change computed by the veneer method and reservoir (depth dependent) method.
The reservoir method deposits more in the deeper parts of a cross section, simulating the
flattening process that fills the historic channel along reservoir deltas (From USACE,
2016).

Currently, an HEC-RAS model can only use one bed change algorithm, which is not ideal for
reservoirs where the veneer method is appropriate in the pool (and potentially upstream or
downstream of the reservoir) and the depth-dependent method is appropriate in the delta. Future
version of HEC-RAS will allow users to specify deposition algorithms spatially.
The depth-dependent deposition method is rarely applicable outside the reservoir delta context.
Depth-dependent deposition sometimes reflect prototype patterns, where the main channel
deposits more than the floodplain. However, in models that alternately deposit and scour (unlike
reservoir models that usually deposit monotonically) the depth dependent model can be unstable.
Depth-dependent deposition converges on a horizontal cross section, which can generate
spurious results and destabilize the solution.
OTHER NEW FEATURES
In addition to the major new sediment features (unsteady sediment and BSTEM) and the features
adopted from or inspired by HEC 6T, HEC included several other new sediment features.

Table 2: HEC 6T features either included in HEC-RAS 5.0 or that inspired similar sediment
features in HEC-RAS 5.0.
New HEC-RAS 5.0 Sediment
Features
Lateral Structure Sediment Diversion
Simplified Channel Evolution Method Develops a trapezoidal channel base on
New Dredging Options
HEC-DSS Sediment Boundary
Condition
Histograph Generator
HDF5 Output and Viewer
Function
Diverts sediment over a lateral structure based
on flow-weighted average. Coarse grain
classes (greater than a user specified
threshold) can be excluded.
transport capacity to simulate channel
evolution in the reservoir deposits during a
dam removal or reservoir flush.
Removes volume from a cross section based
on user-specified mass (either removing a
rectangle or dropping nodes by the veneer
method) in addition to dredging to a specified
depth. The dredging events can also be
applied over multiple time steps now, and the
model can add part (e.g. a portion of the fines)
or all of the dredged material back into the
control volume.
The model can read sediment time series data
by grain class from HEC-DSS. This allows
users to not only de-couple flow and load but
also flow and gradation. The sediment
chapter of the HEC-RAS user manual
includes detailed instructions on creating an
HEC-DSS sediment time series from Excel.
Converts quasi-unsteady flow file into flow
durations of equal sediment transport based
on an upstream rating curve. Where the
algorithm combines flows, it integrates them
into a representative discharge that conserves
sediment mass (instead of a simple average
which underestimates transport).
All sediment output is now written to HDF5
output files and displayed with a new HDF5
viewer.

Lateral Structure Sediment Diversion. HEC-RAS uses “Lateral Structures” to divert water
from the main channel with the broad crested weir and culvert equations. HEC-RAS 5.0
georeferenced lateral weirs, making them much more flexible and robust. Version 5.0 also
added sediment diversions to lateral structures. By default, the sediment model diverts sediment
according to the same “flow weighted” assumption it uses at flow splits – diverting the same
percentage of water and sediment. However, because lateral diversions tend to skim water off
the top of the water column, which transports finer sediment and lower concentrations than the
bulk mixture, the model can filter the diverted grain classes. Users can limit the sediment
diversion threshold grain class. Grain classes smaller than the threshold divert according to the
flow weighted assumption; coarser grain classes are not diverted.
Unsteady sediment transport made the lateral structure sediment capability much more
useful. HEC-RAS can divert water over a lateral structure in steady flow, but only with serious
limitations. Lateral, steady flow diversions are not sensitive to dynamic tail water effects and
require computationally expensive optimizations to account for headwater impacts on the
diversion. The lateral structure feature can be used in the quasi-unsteady sediment mode,
because it is essentially a series of steady flows. However, quasi-unsteady lateral structures
often include poorly posed tail water conditions and the head water optimization – which is not
on by default but is almost always necessary to converge on a sound solution – makes run times
prohibitive. Unsteady sediment transport makes the sediment diversions over lateral structures
much more useful. Sediment diverted over a diversion structure (total and by grain class) with
these features is depicted in Figure 5.
HEC-RAS 5.0 does not compute any sediment dynamics in storage areas. If sediment is
diverted over a lateral weir into a storage area HEC-RAS removes that mass from the simulation.

Figure 5: Sediment diverted over a lateral structure and the Lateral Structure diversion threshold
interface in HEC-RAS.

Simplified Channel Evolution Method. The reservoir deposition method (see above) is an ad
hoc modification to the veneer method for cases when the 1D assumptions predictably diverge
from veneer method assumptions. Erosion has an analogous process, also associated with
reservoirs. Channel evolution through reservoir sediments in dam removal or sediment
management drawdowns are the most common and dramatic divergence from veneer erosion in
riverine systems, and essentially invert the reservoir “bed flattening” process.
Dam removals expose reservoir deltas and usually incise channels, leaving behind
uneroded terraces. The veneer method cannot simulate this process. Therefore, HEC-RAS
includes a simplified channel evolution model, which develops a trapezoidal channel with user
defined maximum bottom widths and side slopes.

Dredging Options. One-dimensional sediment models are commonly applied to simulate

dredging and manage dredging activities (Creech et al., 2010). The USACE and other agencies
tend to dredge to maintain navigation objectives. Therefore, HEC 6 and earlier versions of HEC-
RAS simulated dredging by modifying cross sections to a specified depth, removing all the
material from a user specified rectangle. The model computes the mass removed, but the user
does not control that mass directly.
However, sand and gravel mining also influence bed change and morphology in many
systems. Models cannot reproduce historic bed change in most of these systems without
including substrate removal. The objectives associated with economic dredging generate
different channel impacts and leave behind different historic data. These activates remove
sediment more randomly, not necessarily dropping the cross section to a constant elevation. And
if data are available, dredge rates are usually recorded as mass-per-time, not final uniform
depths. Therefore, several new dredging methods in HEC-RAS 5.0 make dredging
specifications more flexible, for both navigation and mining applications. The new dredging
capabilities can remove a prism of sediment (with more flexible user controls) or a specified
mass. If the model removes user specified masses from the cross section, it can translate these
into flat bottom prisms, or it can remove the mass from the cross section with the veneer method,
which maintains the basic cross section shape. This feature that removes specified mass from the
cross section with the veneer method was developed to simulate economic dredging on the
Missouri River (Shelley and Gibson, 2015) and was used to simulate gravel mining on the
Puyallup (Gibson et al., 2017, in these proceedings).

Figure 6: Cross section modified by dredging event which removes 10,000 tons from the cross
section using the (b) prism and (c) veneer method (from USACE, 2016).
Figure 7: White River sediment calibration from Gibson et al (2016) with and without gravel
mining simulated with the mass-removal dredging option.
 

The new dredging features can also distribute dredging over specified time periods (they were
previously instantaneous) and can re-entrain a user specified percentage of user specified grain
classes, to simulate re-entrainment.

Multiple movable bed limits. Most 1D sediment transport models limit bed change between
user-specified “movable bed limits”. Simulations can be very sensitive to these limits and poorly
selected movable bed limits can generate unrealistic cross section shapes. These limits also
affect transport. Most sediment transport capacity equations compute capacity per-unit-width.
HEC-RAS multiplies this by the wet top within the movable bed limits. Therefore, moving the
movable bed limits not only affects cross section shape, the rate at which mass bed change
translates into bed elevation change, but can also affect the computed capacity. Gibson et al.
(2014) used this feature to simulate reservoir delta scour in Lewis and Clark Lake. The 2011
flood inundated the whole reservoir delta, and only scoured the channel. Vegetated islands
between the delta channels did not scour appreciably. Multiple movable bed limits restricted
HEC-RAS bed change to the channels (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Multi-channel erosion simulated with a single set of movable bed limits (left) and
multiple movable bed limits (right). The multiple movable bed limits restrict erosion (or
all bed change, if specified) to the channels (e.g. for vegetated inter-channel islands).

HDF5 Output and Viewer. HEC-RAS 5.0 converted many of the program output files to
HDF5, including the sediment output. HDF5 is an efficient binary data format which users can
access with freeware. The HDF5 output also has well documented file standards allowing users
to write data mining code, to extract data, and customize results and plots. HEC-RAS 5.0 also
includes a new sediment output viewer which displays profile, time series, and cross section
sediment output from these HDF5 files. The lateral sediment diversion time series in Figure 5 is
an example of this output.

FUTURE SEDIMENT FEATURES IN HEC-RAS

HEC is actively adding new sediment features to HEC-RAS. Sánchez et al. (2017) presents the
sediment solution HEC is adding to the 2D model in HEC-RAS in these proceedings. 2D
sediment transport will receive most of the development resources in the next two years.
However, HEC continues to add new 1D features that will be available in future versions
including variable density transport, hiding functions, distributed flood plain deposition
algorithms, and new plotting capabilities. We invite potential alpha testers to contact HEC about
acquiring developmental versions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The USACE Flood & Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Research and Development Program
funded most of the sediment transport development in HEC-RAS 5.0. The US Army Corps of
Engineers Regional Sediment Management Research Program also funded substantial portions of
BSTEM development and reservoir management features. Individual features were funded by
the Missouri River Restoration and Management Project, and USACE districts as needed. This
paper includes figures from model testing by Feng Yu and Hongyu Deng.

REFERENCES

Adkinson, E. (1996) The Feasibility of Flushing Sediment from Reservoirs, HR Wallingford,

Report OD 137, 99p.
Brownlie, W. (1983) ”Flow Depth in Sand‐Bed Channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 109(7), 959–990.

Brunner, G., Piper, S., Jensen, M., and Chacon, B., (2015) “Combined 1D and 2D Hydraulic
Modeling within HEC-RAS,” World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015,
Austin, TX

Bruner, G., and Gibson, S., (2005) “Sediment Transport Modeling in HEC-RAS” Proceedings
World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2005, Editor: Raymond Walton, May
15–19, 2005, Anchorage, Alaska, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Creech, C.T., Selegean, J.P., and T.A. Dahl (2010) Historic and Modern Sediment Yield for a
Forested Watershed and its Impact on Navigation, paper presented at 9th Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Cantelli, A., Paola, C., and Parker, G. (2005) “Experiments on upstream-migrating erosional
narrowing and widening of an incisional channel caused by dam removal,” Water
Resources research, VOL. 40, W03304, doi:10.1029/2003WR002940,

Gibson, S., Comport, B. and Corum, Z. (2017) “Calibrating a Sediment Transport Model
through a Gravel-Sand Transition: Avoiding Equifinality Errors in HEC-RAS
Models of the Puyallup and White Rivers,” Proceedings, ASCE EWRI World
Environmental & Water Resource Congress.

Gibson, S. and Boyd, P. (2016) “Designing Reservoir Sediment Management Alternatives with
Automated Concentration Constraints in a 1D Sediment Model,” Proceedings International
Symposium on River Sedimentation.

Gibson, S. and Boyd, P. (2016) “Monitoring, Measuring, and Modeling a Reservoir Flush on the
Niobrara River in the Sandhills of Nebraska,” Proceedings, River Flow 2016.

Gibson, S. and Nelson, A. (2016) “Modeling Differential Lateral Bed Change with a Simple
Veneer Method in a One-Dimensional Sediment Transport Model,” Proceedings, River
Flow 2016.

Gibson, S., Simon, A., Langendoen, E., Bankhead, N., and Shelley, J. (2015) “A Physically-
Based Channel-Modeling Framework Integrating HEC-RAS Sediment Transport
Capabilities and the USDA-ARS Bank-Stability and Toe-Erosion Model (BSTEM),”
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, SedHyd Proceedings.

Gibson, S., Brunner, G., Piper, S., and Jensen, M. (2006) “Sediment Transport Computations in
HEC-RAS.” Eighth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (8thFISC), Reno, NV,
57-64.
 Gibson, S. and Boyd, P. (2014) “Modeling Long Term Alternatives for Sustainable Sediment
Management Using Operational Sediment Transport Rules,” Reservoir Sedimentation –
Scheiss et al. (eds), 229-236.

Gibson, S., et al. (2017) Proceedings, World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2017.

HEC (2016a) HEC-RAS River Analysis System Version 5.0 - User Manual, Hydrologic
Engineering Center, CPD-68, 960 p.

HEC (2016b) HEC-RAS River Analysis System Version 5.0 – Hydraulic Reference Manual,
Engineering Center, CPD-69, 539 p.

HEC (2015) HEC-RAS-USDA-ARS Bank Stability & Toe Erosion Model (BSTEM) User and
Technical Reference Manual, CPD-68B, 73p.

Limerinos J. T., (1970) “Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed roughness
in natural channels,”US Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1898-B, 47 p.

Sánchez, A., Gibson, S., and Scharffenberg, W.A. (2017) “Two-Dimensional Sediment
Transport Model Development at the Hydrologic Engineering Center,” Proceedings, World
Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2017.

Thomas, T. (2002) Sedimentation in Stream Networks (HEC-6T): User Manual, 338p

Thomas, W. A. (1982) “Mathematical Modeling of Sediment Movement,” Gravel Bed Rivers,

Ed: Hey, R.D., Bathurst, J.C. and Thorne, C.R., 487-508.

USACE (1993) HEC 6 Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs: User Manual, 288p.

van Rijn, L. (1984) “Sediment Transport, Part III: Bed forms and Alluvial Roughness.” J.
Hydraul. Eng., 110(12), 1733–1754.

View publication stats